Why do people believe in things when the body of scientific evidence shows otherwise

[technodad]

This is not intended to be an attack on any denomination of belief. The aim of this thread is to try to understand why people choose to believe things, when there are far more likely explanations and why people choose to not trust the scientific opinion.

I am not particularly thinking about a discussion about religion because clearly "faith", some old books and preaching make a difference there (although, please discuss religion if it is relevant). I am thinking more about things like:

• People don't believe global is happening when the vast majority of the scientific community can provide evidence that it is.

• People believe in ghosts when their existance violates all the laws of physics and pretty much all "ghost events" (if not absolutely all) can be explained without mystery.

• People don't get their kids vaccinated (e.g. MMR), when it is clear that not vaccinating is orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaccinating.

• People think that palm reading, tea leaf reading, etc actually works...

• People believe in "alternative" medicines work, when every "alternative" medicine that actually works is now simple called "medicine"!

The rules are as follows:

1. You can say what ever you like, and I don't care if you insult me.

2. If you post something, you may have someone say something that challenges your deeply held beliefs, so please only post if this is acceptable to you.

3. No one is allowed to complain about anyone being horrible, or arrogant, based upon the fact that people will only post here if they are up for a debate (see 2).

4. There is no 4.

Curlew, black and other could tell me why you think science is the only way to 'prove' that something is true?i don't. But if we are talking about something like medicine,of any type,then proper scientific testing is the only way to find out if it works
Could you also explain to me why the reductionist philosophy underpinning science at the moment is right? Don't understand the question

Could you explain how it is OK to have so many systems living side by side to explain the word around us even though they are incompatible (eg euclidean geometry and geometry saying 2 parallel lines meet up or classic mechanics and quatum mechanic)? Don't I understand the question

Could you explain to me how it is OK to say one thing and expect everyone to accept as the truth and then 5 or 10 years later so say 'Oh actually, the truth is now ...' (too many examples but I am sure that yiu can find one)? Answer along the line 'That's because science can change as we learn along' not acceptable. It's either the truth or it isn't. If you think it might change in the future then it is not 'the' truth and is subject to discussion and people having different ideas on it. Science is always "the best we know now with the best evidence we have available. More information comes along, things change.

Have any of you actually read some scientific research and done some critical analysis on research papers? Look at all the Cochrane studies etc... (in medicine) Yes

Could you explain how it is OK to have so many systems living side by side to explain the word around us even though they are incompatible (eg euclidean geometry and geometry saying 2 parallel lines meet up or classic mechanics and quatum mechanic)?

Because they are different models of reality. You can describe a coordinate on earth in Cartesian coordinates or in elliptical geometry. You choose your geometry depending on what sort of mathematical treatment you want to apply.

Classical mechanics is a model that works at macroscopic scale; quantum mechanics is a model that works at very small scales. Or another 'incompatibility' - wave/particle duality - a photon can be modelled as a wave or a particle, but really its neither - its a photon.

I am more and more interested to see why it seems that some people have to prove everything they say and other can just say things and that has to be accepted as the truth.

Funny that... it seems to me that its scientists who have to prove everything and believers in the sorts of things mentioned in the OP that are the latter group.

Doctors prescribe drugs that are actively harmful all the time. Every prescription drug can have negative effects. An aspirin a day may keep the heart attack away (in SOME patients) but it will give some of them a GI bleed. The NSAID I took for my inflamed disc can cause GI bleeds. I still took it, because I ruddy needed it!

Then there are the patients living in chronic pain, that nothing in the conventional armoury can help. Complementary therapies can be helpful to those patients. Nothing wrong with acupuncture if it helps someone get through the day. It is a good use of NHS resources if it helps relieve the suffering of someone who is living with chronic pain.

'Science is always "the best we know now with the best evidence we have available'

yup. Scientists actually don't claim to have The Truth (and certainly not the whole truth) - but a process for gradually finding out more and more - and rather crucially, for finding out what isn't true.

I forgot something rather obvious about the 'incompatibility' of classical and quantum mechanics - this year's Nobel Prize for Chemistry. We've been using these hybrid classical/qm simulations for decades.

"how it is OK to have so many systems living side by side to explain the word around us even though they are incompatible (eg euclidean geometry and geometry saying 2 parallel lines meet up or classic mechanics and quatum mechanic)?"

This is because the universe has different rules in different scales.

All mass distorts space-time, but this effect is negligible on a Earth because the mass of the earth is so large and we are all so tiny on it. So we use Euclidian geometry and while building, for example, assume that parallel lines never cross (because they don't, in the distances that we can build).

In space, we need to take the huge masses of planets, stars etc into consideration because they distort the fabric of space, like a lead ball would when it sits in the middle of a stretched bed sheet. This is how interior angles of a planet-sized triangle can add up to less than 180 degrees in space.

An entirely different set of rules apply to subatomic particles, which is why we have Quantum Theory to explain their behaviour.

All these disciplines "live side by side" because all these systems exist inside one another. Atoms make up us and the world, and we are part of the universe.

Archaeology is in, some parts of the world, a minefield of politics and ideology (the archaeology of Jerusalem and middle east is the most obvious example.) Happy to say more about that if you're interested.

I'm interested, if you'd like to Holo. I think it is relevant to the discussion, given the issues of bias and interpretation of evidence (i'm no expert on middle-eastern archaeology btw, but would like to hear what your issues are with archaeology as a science).

Regarding the other subjects on here - i've said this before so hope you don't mind me repeating - i absolutely think everyone is free to believe in what they want (where it doesn't negatively impact on anyone else's life) without being subject to ridicule. However, when you try to use science to justify these beliefs you are always going to lose the argument, because the science is not there. If it was then your beliefs would be more than that and would move into the realm of knowledge, and examples of that have already been given. You (I'm using a generic 'you' btw, not addressing any particular poster) especially weaken your case when you then also ignore the science that proves that a particular belief is false (as with homeopathy). I say that as someone who has freely admitted on here many times to having spiritual beliefs and I am absolutely not saying that because science doesn't prove something that it isn't true.

For people with beliefs experiential evidence is valid, and for those who don't it is not - that surely is the main divide. Of course people interpret their experiences differently which is why there are so many faiths and belief systems. That is not to say that they are not having the experience - they could all be having the same experience, just perceiving it differently for all manner of reasons. The similarities between prayer and meditation is one example, though one is interpreted as a connection with god, the other as a connection with yourself.

I think I've spotted a source of misunderstanding that may run through many of these threads.

We often hear "why believe scientists about a treatment and not the person selling the treatment"

We assume that everyone reading knows what that means, but some might not.

--------
"The lights dim, the door opens and the scientist enters. He dons the Scientist Coat and the Scientist Hat. He mutters as he approaches the vial of life-giving homeopathy water. Waving his hands slowly he drops a little of his red potion into the vial and a little of the blue potion.

Studying the vial closely The Scientist declares "this treatment does not work"
--------

If it were like that then they'd have a point wouldn't they.

But at the end of the day the final test is to see if it works on people and makes them better, and homeopathy doesn't. A child could see that this test is conclusive.

The whole double blind thing is just to stop bias, but the real test is "does it make people better"

Are there any figures re. how many deaths are caused through drugs (as in medical)? I would think it'd be hundreds of thousands whereas those killed through alternative therapies? Can't think there would be many.

The reason I ask is as a T1 diabetic science saves my life every day, but it's a double edged sword as it could just as easily kill me if I overdid it on the insulin. Whereas I've tried 'alternative' things such as cinnamon which do actually help - nowhere near as dramatic but certainly effective without the danger of death.

I think there's a place for all things.

oh come on, the reason alternative medicines don't kill anyone is that they are only pretending to treat you. Like children having a tea party with empty cups.

Lurchers - good post.

Milk - every therapy should have a risk/benefit analysis.
In the case of alternative therapies - for herbal medicines probably quite similar to conventional I'd guess. For something like homeopathy, the risk is mostly if it's used as an alternative rather than as a complementary therapy.

BOB - its not quite that simple because people are genuinely convinced that homeopathy does work. My DHs 'homeopathic' cream did help his eczema. He doesn't for a moment believe it was because it contains 'Active Ingredients: Graphites 6x ' (the memory of some pencil lead!) but I'm sure there would be people who'd see the effect and be willing to swallow the pseudoscientific guff.

BackOnBriefly - that is a little unfair. As has been said, alternative medicines that work become medicines. At some point they were alternative - mainstream acceptance didn't suddenly give them a magic super power-up that made them effective.

Of course some will be shown to be ineffective, but where there is a lack of evidence (rather than evidence that shows that something does not work) it is not beyond the realms of possibilities that some remedies and treatments may become mainstream in the future as further studies are undertaken. It is perfectly reasonable to say you do not wish to use a treatment that has not been proven, but it is not reasonable to say that all unproven treatments are ineffective.

Errol - thank you

Lurchers - yes, good post.

I think that archaeology is a very interesting one - I'm not sure if I would describe it as a science as such, although scientific processes happen in the process of archaeology. My only real knowledge of archaeology is to do with the places in the Bible, which of course are loaded with religious, political and socio-economic significance, so, for example access to what might be validly thought of as archaeological sites is fraught with difficulty (The Temple Mount in Jerusalem is an obvious example of this: deeply problematic) So archaeological activity is determined by political, religious and socio-economic factors from the outset.

Without going on too much, the approaches to the archaeology of this region have varied massively over the years - the 'Bible and spade' school of 'Biblical archaeology' was made up of people who, maybe literally, had a Bible in one hand and a spade in the other, went to the places named in the Bible and dug. Problem is that it's not always very clear where some of the places named in the Bible actually are - classic example is the route of the Exodus - is it northerly or southerly? We just don't know.

To make things more complex, are the numbers in the Bible supposed to be taken literally or not? (I'd say not, personally). Biblical literalism is a big issue in the archaeology of that area. So if the Exodus was a huge train of thousands as in the movies, that'd suggest a very different archaeological imprint from a 'small group of runaway slaves' suggested by a leading Jewish scholar. So a) we don't always know where to look, and b) we don't always know what we are looking for.

More complex still, the digs are v. expensive and are often funded by religious groups with a very deeply vested interest in the results. Very sadly of course, this a beleagured and war torn part of the world, and that has a devastating effect on its archaeological heritage - Syria's very ancient sites are being decimated :( so very sad

Finally, there's the issue of interpretation. We find something, and we assess what it is, what it was used for, when it dates to, and so on. We use our historical knowledge to do that. So historical interpretation and archaeological interpretation go hand in hand. If you believe, like one major Israeli archaeologist does, that King David never existed, you're not going to go looking for evidence of David's palace in Jerusalem. Or rather, if you find something that might be a palace, you're not going to assign it to David. www.timesofisrael.com/archaeologists-say-one-of-king-davids-palaces-found/ this is interesting; read the very last para.

So all in all it's a highly subjective process. There are still huge areas of the middle east that have not been excavated, there are others that have been done to death, there are very significant areas that have been wrecked by war (Syria was incredibly important in early Christianity). This all means, IMO, that it's a fascinating and truly worthwhile enterprise, but can't be the be-all and end-all of truth -finding - I don't think it's reasonable to say, for example, that archaeology has disproved the Exodus. (Some people do say that.)

this Sorry - here's the link to the Davidic palace!

I've just scrolled down to the comments on that article from the Times of Israel, which just go to show how incredibly loaded with significance biblical archaeology is.

MostlyLovingLurchers I'm talking about things like homeopathy and reiki and others which don't involve doing anything to the patient at all. Any alternative treatments that actually involve doing something to the patient will carry risks too.

Your argument rests on the fact that scammers taking someone's money for a fake miracle cure will be less harmful than say Chemotherapy.

ErrolTheDragon On come on! We've covered this with the placebo effect. If you tell people you have a space ray that will cure them then some will feel better. That doesn't mean that the space ray is effective.

Totally OT but it really bugs me that we can't really be sure about the significance of a lot of archaeological remains, and therefore what life was really like for those people - the information is lost. DH once did a short course looking at barrows etc and commented that the default explanation of anything that wasn't obviously practical was that it must be of religious or ritual significance.

I wonder what a future archaeologist would make if she dug up the remains of this edifice.

BOB - the cream wasn't working by placebo... just as a cream. But the point is that if there is any real or perceived effect for whatever reason, people will think that the "does it make people better" test has been passed. You still have to wheel in the scientists - and statisticians - to get beyond this.

Wow, Errol, that's amazing! What is it?

Looks like a temple to a raptor god to me

I'm going to disagree with your first point - archaeology is absolutely a science, albeit a cross-disciplinary one. I am biased here though since i have a BSc in archaeology! It is probably fair to say that there is a higher level of interpretation required than with some other disciplines, given the nature of the evidence.

I think i agree with much of what you have said about the middle east. The archaeological resource has been exploited and damaged for political and religious ends. Most professional archaeologists would regard biblical archaeologists as psuedo-scientists, with a clear agenda. Archaeology is all about looking at the evidence impartially, formulating an interpretation that is then peer reviewed etc etc as with other sciences. It is absolutely not about saying 'here is my theory, i'm off to find the evidence and i will only look at the evidence through the prism of my theory'. Of course i'm writing about what should happen, not what is actually happening in your examples.

I imagine there are extremes on both sides in this region. No sensible archaeologist would say that they have disproved Exodus - they would say there is no evidence for it, or may say that other evidence points to x happening instead of y.

Regarding what you said about interpretation, yes historical sources are used, but in conjunction with other methodologies - stratigraphy, typography, various dating techniques, etc. In my area there are no historical sources so that is pretty much all you have (plus there are areas like experimental and ethno-archaeology which while not evidence themselves may help understand what you are looking at). Where historical sources are used it is with acute awareness of bias - that would apply to Suetonius or Ceasar as well as the bible.

So yes, interpretation may be more subjective than with other sciences, but any theory is subject to the same scrutiny as any other scientific theory, and archaeologists expect their theories to change and evolve in the light of new evidence. Of course, when that evidence is being manipulated for other purposes (the results of which are then perpetuated in the media) erroneous conclusions pass into the public arena as fact, and irreplaceable ancient sites have been irrevocably damaged or completely lost in the process. The fault though lie with those doing the manipulating, not archaeology.

Thanks, Lurchers, that's really interesting. Do you think that biblical archaeology / archaeology of the middle east is unique in its complexities? I'm not an archaeologist, ive encountered it from a theologian POV, so don't know how it relates to archaeology more generally.

I see what you mean about it being not the archaeology that is the problem (you put it differently) but the people via whom it is mediated to the public - this is v similar to the point I made about medicine yesterday. All knowledge comes to us via people, we can't escae that, even if we are v highly learnedourselves. Therefore all knowledge is subject to the people who mediate it; therefore subjective. That's my basic point on this thread! :)

Therefore all knowledge is subject to the people who mediate it; therefore subjective.

I don't agree with that, certainly not for the 'hard' sciences or maths. The mass of a carbon 12 atom is 12. E=mc2. The volume of a sphere is =(4/3)?r3. etc etc etc - there is a vast amount of non-subjective knowledge.